I thank members of the delegation for their presentations. Mr. Clifford's concluding remarks have reminded me of the first point I wish to make. I welcome the fact that this discussion is taking place, that the Green Paper has been published and that we are examining entrepreneurship. In welcoming these developments, however, I wish to voice my concerns about the fact that aspects of Irish education are being seen as commodities. This matter has not been mentioned today, but it is developing in Irish education. People are looking at students as commodities, rather than considering the broader perspective of education. It is possible, in dealing with entrepreneurship, that we could go down the road of seeing students as people who can help us to make some money, as distinct from people who need to be given a well-balanced education. This answers Mr. Clifford's concluding comments about the arts, CSPE, etc., to some extent. He has a vision that we should concentrate on other areas as well. I will return to the issue of entrepreneurship as a whole.
A great deal of emphasis has been placed on the alternative leaving certificate programmes, such as the LCVP and the LCA. I am concerned that many schools are not in a position, for various reasons such as lack of teachers or lack of space, to offer the LCA option. Such problems are encountered in some instances in schools with students who most need the benefits of the programmes. Does the curriculum development unit have any suggestions for addressing such problems? What plans are in train to ensure that every school can offer the programmes? I have encountered cases of children with special needs who would like to participate in the programmes but are unable to do so. In the foreword to the discussion document produced by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, a question is asked about whether the leaving certificate is still the dominant force in Irish education. The only answer to such a question is "Yes". It is unfortunate, in many ways, that the leaving certificate continues to be so dominant, but that will be the case as long as the present system of entry to third level education remains in place.
Students continue to make subject choices based on the likely points return. I appreciate that this matter has been examined in the document. They do not necessarily look at their own skills, as they believe it is easier to get a high grade in certain subjects. I do not wish to mention them, but we are all aware of the subjects which are perceived to be easier. They might not always be correct, but second level students choose their subjects on that basis. While some of them receive very good career guidance, I do not think the qualities individual students have to offer are examined in enough depth. It could also be argued that one is too young when making choices after the junior certificate, if one is not doing transition year. The choices made at that stage will affect where one goes for a long period thereafter. If one does not choose a science or business subject, for example, one will be unable to study science or business at third level. This important issue needs to be looked at. I assume that the NCCA receives a great deal of feedback regarding this matter and I wonder how it plans to address it. Is dealing with it part of the NCCA's future plans? I am aware that a report into the points system was produced in 1999 and I would like to know how it will be addressed.
The junior certificate courses have been discussed today. The introduction of a new junior certificate science syllabus, which everybody welcomes, was the subject of some debate at the teachers' conferences last week. I have visited schools in which science laboratories are in an appalling condition and I am sure this experience is shared by other members of the committee. I take the point that it is difficult to introduce a new syllabus in a fair manner, as the students of lovely schools in which all the facilities needed for experiments are in place will be at an advantage compared to those who will never see an experiment taking place in front of them. This point needs to be made.
Regarding the leaving certificate once more, I wish to state that the LCVP and the LCA still have quite an academic emphasis. Perhaps some of the members of the delegations will disagree with my assertion that greater emphasis could be placed on other things. This is another example of an issue that relates to the facilities that schools have. If a school wishes to offer some technical subjects but does not have enough space, it will be unable to do so. It is another problem that exists within the system.
The revision of syllabi in recent years has been mentioned. Will there be more revisions in the coming years? What is the timetable for the implementation of new syllabi?
We have to look at how subjects are taught. This relates once more to the points that have been made about the leaving certificate. The argument that teachers are being forced to teach to exam papers, as opposed to teaching to the curriculum, can be strongly made. Teachers have not necessarily chosen to do this. A question about the frog on last year's leaving certificate biology paper is a good example of something that is on the curriculum, but which nobody ever thought would come up in the examination, as it was not seen as a large element of the curriculum. There was a large hullabaloo when the question appeared, even though the frog is on the course. Teachers had been teaching to the biology exam papers rather than to the biology curriculum, partly because of pressure from parents and students. Answers are needed regarding this matter.
I would like the delegations to give their opinions about the implementation of the LCVP, LCA, transition year and CSPE programmes. How successful have the programmes been? Has there been uniformity of implementation? Parents in one county might say that the transition year programme is fantastic, as a consequence of their children's experiences, but parents in another area might give totally different feedback. The same is true of the LCVP and LCA programmes. If members of the delegations would like to make comments or suggest improvements, they are welcome to do so. I do not believe in uniformity in what is available and the choices people can make, as different schools have different needs. I am a strong believer in transition year and support it wholeheartedly.
Comments have been made in the past year - among others by the Institute of Engineers - that transition year introduces students to part-time work at an early age. This sudden emphasis on getting students into work could bring out their entrepreneurial skills, which would be positive. However, one must also consider the importance of their studies. Perhaps the witnesses would comment on where the balance between work and studies lies. Obviously, once students enter a workplace for work experience - a vital aspect of the transition year - they are suddenly introduced to a new environment and while they are not generally paid for work experience, they see other people being paid. Entrepreneurs tend to want to make money. How can we strike a balance in this regard?
Although I do not have the details with me, I understand a study was done last year comparing the experiences of transition year for boys and girls. While I am not sure who carried it out, I understand it found that girls had a more positive experience than boys. Will the witnesses comment on this? How can we ensure that boys and girls have equally positive experiences of transition year?
To return to the first presentation, the assessment for learning initiative is under way in Cork and Sligo. Is this a pilot initiative and, if so, does the NCCA hope to introduce it nationally? The rebalancing of the junior cycle syllabus started with certain subjects. Why were these subjects chosen? Was the reason that they seemed to have a heavier content - bigger books is one way to put it - or was there another reason?
Ms Cassidy talked about the junior certificate school programme. Where do the students who participate in this programme generally go after the junior certificate? I am aware Ms Cassidy will not be able to answer the question in full. What programmes do they take up at that point? Is it generally the established leaving certificate or do they take the other options? How is its success evaluated and how successful has it been to date?
On the points made by Mr. Clifford on further education, I am glad there was a focus on this area and that someone came before us to address the issue. What is the take-up of these courses? Where are they available? I do not expect to receive answers to these questions today, but perhaps the witnesses could provide us with details of the structures in place - I presume the vocational education committees offer the courses - the counties doing well in this area and the success rates of those who have completed them?